Wilber

This has been going on for most of my life and I'm tired of it. When you make up your mind let me know and I'll deal with it.

Invest in what? Provinces don't retire but when one source of income disappears everyone has to find another. Do you think Alberta will be prepared for it? My guess is they will to a degree but it is unlikely that that they will be able to duplicate the energy boom.

Geoffrey I was living in Alberta when Lougheed brought in the Heritage Fund in 1976 to prepare for the day when Alberta's energy bonanza declined. Twenty years later in 1996 it was around 12 billion. Ten years later it is less than 3 billion larger meaning it has barely kept up with inflation in spite of the highest energy prices in history. I'm no longer an Alberta resident so it is no skin off my backside but doesn't that make you feel even a teeny bit nervous about direction of Alberta's governments and the Provinces future or are you confident that enough of the royalties are being used to prepare for that inevitable future whenever it comes?

No portion of the country is truly dependant on the rest. The only thing that is required for independence is a population willing to pay the price of independence, what ever it may be. The reason we have a country at all is years ago its people decided we were better off together than apart. Always is a long time. How about as long as Alberta's oil and gas reserves hold out and Alberta's oil and gas is as important to the world economy as they are now, Alberta will have a major influence on the rest of Canada's prosperity? I would consider that a valid argument.

Then you do have doubt or you would not be saying "viable as what". But I agree with you Wilber in the sense that NO province in Canada would be able to achieve an independent successful status as an individual country especially in this age of globalization where as 'the smaller you are , the worse off you will be'. Speaking of Quebec, surley you realize that there is no way Quebec would be able to leave confederation with all it's present assets. Quebec would be best described as an artificial province created by the rest of Canada and will virtually be always dependent on Canada. I have no doubt but will it be a Switzerland or an Albania? Both are viable but very different.

I have no doubt an independent Quebec is viable. Most of our Provinces are probably independently viable. The question is, viable as what? Would independence come at a cost and what would that cost be, not whether it is doable.

Most countries don't have the ability to supply all their food needs but it is lunacy to give away what they do have in the pursuit of a short term gain financed by foreign taxpayers. Eventually they will pay for it.

Canada can not also grow coffee beans and bananas on its land. However, Canada can grow coffee beans and bananas in greenhouses. Should we screw the consumers and the taxpayers with subsidies and tariffs and quotas to support all of the greenhouse farmers? Charles, perhaps when you get it through your head that subsidies, wherever they come from, are about rewarding those who are less productive and penalizing those who are more productive, you will understand. Until then there is no hope. Bye

In Japan and many European countries, agriculture is heavily subsized and agressively protected. I spent a good part of three years in Japan and I know that Japnanese rice production is one of the most protected and subsidized crops on earth. Despite Canada's size it does not have a lot of really good all purpose farm land and most of it is located near our most heavily populated centers because it is also the best place to live. The Fraser Valley is arguably the best farm land in the country and it is under tremendous pressure for developement even though its farms are profitable. Without our Provincial Agricultural Land Reserve legislation, it would have been pavement years ago.

Unprotected and unsubsidized producers are not holding anyone hostage but you would have them held hostage to foreign producers who are. You can be held hostage by anyone who has a monopoly, It doesn't have to be a Canadian monopoly. I understand your motives and they are entirely selfish.

Untill there are no more Canadian carrot producers, then US carrot producers will be able to charge what they damn well please. You are describing something called "predatory pricing". I know of no successful attempt to eliminate all competition by lowering prices and then raising prices later in any sector. It would be impossible in an agricultural setting. There are simply too many producers, and too many potential producers and it is simply too easy to exit or enter a particular market.The day US producers tried to raise prices (assuming that were possible) to take advantage of their monopoly status (assuming that existed), Canadian (and other foreign) producers would quickly eye the market. To pick one example, New Zealand can produce butter and deliver it to Canadian stores at lower cost than Canadian (or US) butter producers can. Needless to say, Canadian federal import quotas severely restrict butter imports and so you don't see Anchor butter at Loblaws. The world is a big place and the idea of predatory pricing in agricultural products is untenable. When it comes to monopoly pricing, I am far more fearful of domestic producers and their political clout with domestic governments. Foreign producers could not possibly be worse in their greedy rapaciousness. August, I can see that you have no idea how much money is involved in setting up and running a modern farm. I will ask you the same question as I asked Charles. Who in their right mind would invest that kind of money if they knew that people like you are going to fall all over themselves to allow the predatory practices of other countries to make them unprofitable? Who in the Fraser Valley is going to turn sub divisions, parking lots and industrial parks back into farms because foreign subsidies made farming unprofitable at a previous time? You and Charles are the protectionists but it is foreign producers you want to see protected in the form of subsidies so you can buy their goods more cheaply. Why is it that you can't show the same consideration for your fellow Canadians?

Isn't that what I said or are you saying that subsidies and tariffs imposed by a Canadian government are protectionist but those imposed by a US government are not? Untill there are no more Canadian carrot producers, then US carrot producers will be able to charge what they damn well please. They are not fools if they can destroy their competition by doing so, thereby giving them unchallanged access to a market. The people who allow them to do it are the fools. A common fallacy is that softwood lumber was ever covered by NAFTA. It was not. Our governments have been doing Canadians a diservice by letting them believe that it was.

Charles, for a while I actually thought you might be a smart guy but I now have my doubts. Maybe you are but are just baiting me. I'll try one more time. Subsidies exist so that producers can sell their product a price that is lower than their cost to produce it. Somehow you believe this is not protectionism but a tariff to protect the victims of that subsidy is. They are both protectionism. You seem to be in favor of protectionism if it saves you a nickel but against if it doesn't. A subsidy is government intervention. Do you not think that Canada should protect its citizens from interventions by foreign governments? If local products come on the market that aren't subsidized, a subsidized foreign producer can then lower his price to undercut the unsubsidized producer and still make a buck because his government is picking up the tab. I'm sorry but I don't think I can explain it any simpler than that. I have to wonder why anyone would want to invest millions in a farming operation when they know that there are people like you out there who can't wait to cut their legs out from under them to save a nickel on a cucumber.

It's not unusual for a party to win a majority with less than half the popular vote in a system where there are more than two parties. The last NDP majority in BC was formed by a party which got a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the party which wound up in opposition. That is a screwed up system.

First you should learn the difference between a tariff and a tax. If you support foreign subsidies then I guess you think foreign governments should decide. I am not talking about farmers who produce at higher prices. I am talking about foreign governments who support farmers who cannot produce at lower prices. What is so difficult for you to understand? Local farmers who are asking for protection from foreign subsidies are asking for a level playing field not screwing the local consumer. I don't know about where you live but around here when local produce is on the shelf the price of imported stuff goes down to compete. What is so difficult about this principle? Hope you don't work for Bombardier.

So I take it that you guys are in favour of subsidies as long as you benefit from them and are not doing the subsidizing. That's the difference between us. I don't believe in them period. I also don't see the difference in a tariff and a subsidy. They just benefit different people and they both take money out of the economy without producing anything of value. It would seem that you both do. When you speak of choice. I would like to have the choice of buying fresh produce for four months of the year, not stuff picked green weeks before and shipped thousands of miles. Also, this stuff is now being shipped by truckers paying a buck a liter for diesel. Your cheaper produce has been subsidized by cheap fuel and foreign governments. The cheap fuel is on the way out. If foreign producers no longer face local competition, how long do you think those foreign subsidies are going to last? Why would you continue to subsidize something if you have a monopoly? You are not about choices. You are about a quick buck and damn the consequences.

Bull. Haven't you noticed that produce prices go way down when the Canadian crops go on the shelves in the summer and fall. You obviously don't do the grocery shopping in your family.

One other thing on subsidies. While they may come out of the US governments piggy bank, the money spent by those US farmers goes into US communities and companies. The taxes they pay go to the US treasury, their State and local governments. The same goes for the people they employ. All the things those Canadian farmers who are effected used to provide in their country and communities are now going to the US. If you think a foreign government's subsidy is a gift to you and your country, you are short sighted.

Nonsense. Who would you impose this tariff on? It might be to my own personal benefit, but would it be to this country's benefit? The Japanese would only do so if it benefited Japan and the Japanese. It would not be a gift. Do we act in the best interests of our own country and fellow citizens or are our priorities centered on just grabbing what we can for ourselves? If another country's predatory trade policies don't have a negative effect on me personally, well screw those who are effected? Are we a nation or not?

I speak of tariffs as a response to subsidies, nothing else. If there is no subsidy, there is no need for a tariff. I do not support subsidies. I don't know if you fall into this category but I am always amazed when people who consider Canada's self sufficiency in such things as energy of primary importance, or we should have a Canada only price for Canadian oil and gas, or freak at the thought of selling one liter of water to the US, can be so cavalier when it comes to the security of what they need to put on the table every day in order to survive.

The real question here is are MP's going to be paid a fixed amount for expenses regardless of what they actually spend or should they have to submit receipts for every expense before being reimbursed? If it is the latter, what would be the cost of administering and vetting all those expense claims? Would it be worth it? If it is to be the former, then it is their business what they spend the money on. If some want to live on Kraft Dinner when they are in Ottawa and spend what they save on something else, that's their business. If they want to spend every penny on living as well as they can on what they receive, that's also their business. The real issue is, are they receiving too much, not what they actually spend it on.

Good. We can work with that. CAVEAT: The trouble is that some people believe it is ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Some people even steal from the poor to give to the rich! They get around the immorality of theft by denying people's rights to their own property or by imposing a sense of charity that we must all have. Of course, they determine who is on the receiving end! Other people think that any instance of genetically modified agriculture is immoral. I will say that "forcing something upon a person against their will and stealing their property" are objectively immoral. Not every country has the same resources and some countries have amicable relationships with neighboring countries who can provide you food for cheaper. Think of what you are foregoing. The local citizens can look at it this way: A subsidy forces local citizens to pay extra (through taxes) to give money to local producers so that they may continue to produce locally -- without the ability to opt out. A quota reduces supply to local citizens -- without the ability to opt out. A tariff forces local citizens to pay more directly through a markup -- without the ability to opt out. What is moral about forcing a local citizen to buy local? If a "local" farmer figured out how to produce coffee beans or bananas and his uncle was Prime Minister of Canada, would it be moral to subsidize his "local" greenhouse? would it be moral to raise tariffs and set quotas on imported coffee and bananas? so that our "local" farmer can make us self-sufficient in our coffee consumption? to encourage more people to get into the expensive business of producing "local" greenhouses? to pass on higher prices to local citizens? I agree with most of what you say. I don't believe in subsidies, tariffs or other trade restrictions. I do say that a country has every right to impose tariffs on foreign goods if those goods are subsidized to a point where they are a threat to the security of that country and the livelihood of its citizens. Volutarily giving more and more control of a country's food supply to a foreign government and that country's special interest groups is a potential threat. We already know that the price of oil is driving up the price of food because of the cost of transportation. We allow our own farmers to be driven out of business because of foreign subisidies and we will be left with no choice but to buy goods that are grown to standards set by other countries and at their prices. About 1% of BC is viable farm land. I live right in the middle of the most productive region in BC if not Canada. The farmers here are not subsidised and are profitable. Allowing it to dissapear into urban sprawl because those farmers are driven out of business by foreign subsidies would be just plain stupid.

In the UK there are all kinds of good alternatives to driving. I could never figure out why anyone would want to drive on a regular basis in London. It's just so easy to get around on the tubes and busses. Lots of whistle stopper trains to all points leaving the city and a couple of express trains an hour to major centers.

This is old news. It comes up every year, regardless of the government.

I like the idea of shipping them off to Kandahar to clean lavs for a month or two. No criminal record but sharing in a few rocket attacks with the people they pissed on might make the right impression. Put their summer vacation to a good use.